Report – Police Scotland – PIRC/00264/21
The complaints
The complaints in this case arose following the applicant being charged with contravening Section 3 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 and Police Scotland reporting the matter to the Procurator Fiscal following which the charges against the applicant were discontinued in advance of trial. We have reviewed the handling of five complaints, namely that:
- The applicant was subjected to oppressive conduct by a police officer who imposed conditions restricting his contact with his daughter without charging him with an offence;
- The applicant was informed that the police investigation had concluded prior to his attendance for police interview and he was unnecessarily held in custody;
- The applicant was threatened with being held in police custody due to lack of co-operation and unfair bail conditions being imposed;
- The applicant was charged without Police Scotland having a sufficiency of evidence for the alleged offence; and
- Officers failed to trace a key witness prior to the applicant’s arrest and police interview, with said witness later providing exculpatory evidence in the applicant’s favour.
Police Scotland’s decision
Police Scotland did not uphold complaints 1, 2, 3 or 4 and did not provide a clear determination for complaint 5.
Our findings
We have found that Police Scotland did not handle any of the applicant’s complaints to a reasonable standard.
Consequently, we have made four recommendations to address the shortcomings in Police Scotland’s handling of complaints 1, 2, 4 and 5. In summary, we have recommended that Police Scotland reassess the evidence available and provide the applicant with a fresh response.
Our recommendations should be implemented by Police Scotland within two months of the date of this report.
Outcome
Police Scotland implemented all four recommendations made in this case. In doing so, Police Scotland conducted further enquiries and provided the applicant with a further response which addressed the shortcomings in the handling of four complaints that we had highlighted in our CHR report. Two complaints remained not upheld, and two complaints were subsequently upheld by the police. The rationale for each of these determinations was adequately outlined in the further response issued to the applicant. In relation to the upheld complaints, Police Scotland identified and appropriately disseminated organisational learning regarding their process for scheduling pre-arranged police interviews.
Police Bodies : Police Scotland